On 1/24/07 11:03 AM, "Declan Naughton" <piratepenguin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, David Schlesinger <david.schlesinger at palmsource.com> wrote:
>> On 1/24/07 10:20 AM, "Declan Naughton" <piratepenguin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> As far as I am aware, OpenMoko is not using the GNU/CMU Mach kernel..
>>>> No, they're certainly not. However, "GNU" _is_ and they're failing to give
>> appropriate credit to the "principal developer" of their system. So on what
>> basis are you demanding that OpenMoko give credit to GNU when GNU refuses to
>> give credit to Mach...? As I've said, that's nothing more than self-serving
>> hypocrisy.
>> Where did I, or anybody else, DEMAND that OpenMoko give credit to GNU?
Dave Crossland's demanded it on a couple of occasions. Go back and reread
his latest messages, particularly his message of 6:13 am this morning.
> GNU refuse to give credit to Mach? They only call the microkernel GNU *MACH*!
No, this is _absconding_ with credit which belongs to someone else,
specifically the CMU Mach team; naming someone else's work after yourself
doesn't constitute giving them "credit" by any reasonable stretch of the
imagination. GNU simply took advantage of the unlicensed state of Mach,
relicensed it unilaterally under the GPL and re-christened it.
If GNU's contribution to "GNU/Linux" is significant enough to merit endless
discussion of giving them credit on mailing lists which are dedicated to
other topics, why is CMU's contribution to "GNU" (so-called) not given equal
shrift? Why this "Oh, I'll ask about it..." hand-waving? Does your
commitment to "freedom" only extend to efforts on behalf of the FSF...?
Let GNU resolve their own issues with giving appropriate credit before you
start insisting that others do the same for GNU.